[geocentrism] Re: Tides
- From: Regner Trampedach <art@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- To: geocentrism@xxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Date: Tue, 13 May 2008 00:25:45 +1000
Neville Jones wrote:
There is no such assumption in my analysis. Close to a body, you have to take into account the mass distribution in that bode, in order to get an accurate value of the gravitational force from that object. To calculate an accurate value of the gravitational acceleration by the Earth on you, we would need to know the detailed mass-distribution inside the Earth - considering the Earth a point-object in this case, would be a bad approximation. The gravitational force on you by the Moon, however, is accurately given by approximating the Moon by a point-mass. Likewise, the difference in gravitational force by the Moon on opposite sides of the Earth, are accurately given by approximating the Moon by a point-mass. If the Earth was completely rigid, the tidal forces from the Moon would still be the same - they have nothing to do with the composition of the Earth - only the distance from the Moon and the diameter of the Earth enters here. The response of the Earth to this tidal force, obviously depends on the composition of the Earth, but I know too little about that to be able to calculate anything beyond orders-of-magnitude estimates. Notice, however, that my post didn't say anything about the amplitude or phase of the tides on Earth - I only gave it's cause, and the cause of tides is what was misunderstood by other posters here. The acceleration of the centre-of-mass of the Earth behaves exactly as if all the Earth's mass was in that point. That can be fairly easily proven mathematically (and is what we observe). The same obviously goes for the Moon. So the orbits of the Earth and the Moon around their common bary- centre, can be accurately described in the point-mass approximation. If you subtract that motion and multiply by the mass, you can get the tidal forces on opposite sides of the Earth. There is nothing inconsistent here. Gravity acts between each and every particle with mass. Well, this is what we experience as tides. If you want to call that a "...very serious tidal wave...", be my guest. Remember that Earth's own gravity is still pulling every part of the Earth towards it's own centre-of-mass (Earth is self-gravitating). The gravitational acceleration by the Moon at the surface of the Earth, is about a millionth of that due to the Earth in the same spot. The tidal acceleration is another factor of 30 smaller. It is not that hard to actually put some numbers in, and check ones assumptions. Incidentally, the centrifugal force produced by Earth's daily rotation is about 30,000 times larger than the tidal force from the Moon, and produces the (stationary) 21.3km equatorial bulge. Assuming the displacement to be proportional to force (as with an ideal spring/elastic band), the Lunar tidal force would result in a 7mm difference between high- and low-tide in the Earth's crust. The observed effect is a few centimeters, and obviously depends on the composition of the local crust - orders-of-magnitude estimates can be pretty powerful (this one wasn't far off)... It is the same thing, Neville. You give the total gravitational force by the Moon on various parts of the Earth in those expressions. Now let me rephrase in terms of the distance, d, between the centre-of-mass of the Earth and the Moon (d=x+R) to make it symmetric. Then we get: (d-R)^(-2) d^(-2) (d+R)^(-2) which is the same as (d*d-2dR+R*R)^(-1) d^(-2) (d*d+2dR+R*R)^(-1) Just substitute d=x+R and you'll see it is the same. Now since, R << d, we can Taylor expand in (R/d). First we prepare our _expression_ by taking the leading term, d^(-2), outside, to get [d*d(1-2R/d+(R/d)^2]^(-1) d^(-2) [d*d(1+2R/d+(R/d)^2)]^(-1) Since (R/d) is very small, we can to the first approximation, neglect (R/d)^2 so that [d*d(1-2R/d)]^(-1) d^(-2) [d*d(1+2R/d]^(-1) Again, since (R/d) is very small, we can approximate 1/(1+2R/d) by 1-2R/d - that is the Taylor expansion, and it gives us 1/d^2 + 2R/d^3 1/d^2 1/d^2 - 2R/d^3 If we now subtract the motion of the centre-of-mass of the Earth, 1/d^2, then we are left with the tidal forces: + 2R/d^3 0 - 2R/d^3 -2/d^3 is the derivative of 1/d^2 with respect to d, and then we multiply by the radius of the Earth, R, to get the tidal force - exactly as I wrote in my previous post. In our calculations, we can just as well use the exact expressions, before the Taylor expansion and before throwing away the 2nd order term in (R/d). The difference is very small, however, and the form I wrote, conveys a lot more meaning to a physicist. I'm a bit confused. Why does x and R change if the Universe is Geocentric?!? As they do. The analysis is thus far too simplistic.Yes - and I never did say that I provided a thorough analysis of the tidal interactions between the Earth and the other bodies in the Solar system. I gave a simple analysis aimed at being understood by laymen, and which explains the major forces that govern tides on Earth. As with other aspects of the so-called 'solar system', such forces would lead very quickly to disorder and destruction.Nope. Why would they? See the actual numbers in green, above. This reply got much longer than I had intended - sorry. Regner Neville. |
- Follow-Ups:
- [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- From: Neville Jones
- [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- From: philip madsen
- [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- References:
- [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- From: Neville Jones
- [geocentrism] Re: Tides
Other related posts:
- » [geocentrism] Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides
- » [geocentrism] Tides - Neville Jones
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides - Bernie Brauer
- » [geocentrism] Re: Tides - Neville Jones